[CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff

Fri Sep 23 17:24:03 UTC 2016

The CR filed yesterday does not embody a compromise between the Senate majority and minority. It has quickly become clear that it cannot obtain the 60 votes required for getting to a vote on final passage, and is in fact designed to force Democrats back into negotiations prior to a procedural vote scheduled on the bill next Tuesday (the USG runs out of $ at midnight next Friday if a CR is not enacted by then).

More horse-trading will occur in those negotiations and it is quite possible that the IANA transition delay will come back into play as a trade for an item wanted by the Democrats; press reports earlier this week indicated that a number of Senate Ds would accept a delay in exchange for gaining additional funding flexibility for the Export-Import Bank. Also significant is that, in addition to Donald Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that he favors a delay, both Republican members of the FCC also announced the same position this past week – and the Chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees just sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking multiple legal questions related to the transition, and requesting a response by next Tuesday (the same day as the initial Senate vote).

So IANA remains in play and nothing is final until the same bill is passed by both the Senate and House and signed by the President.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:55 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff

This is indeed the present state of affairs.  The continuing resolution has not been completed, though.  We’ll have to see what happens when it’s all over.

Steve

On Sep 23, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

I heard the Rider preventing the IANA transition is OUT of the current Continuing Resolution.  Can Steve or Becky confirm?
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

<image003.png>

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:53 AM
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff

Milton, I'm glad to see there's now been lots of responses to Ted Cruz's spin and hopefully this debunking will hit Trump's peddling as well. They probably won't learn to stop peddling lies but at least they've underestimated some knowledgeable people within ICANN, who are able to describe the IANA transition in layman's terms.

I learned a couple of things from that article, too.. =)
-Raoul

On 22 September 2016 at 18:37, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk>> wrote:
Sorry for the delay, Nigel.

I agree with your conclusion.

As you note, the .int TLD is quite well identified other than for the international databases:  there is no ambiguity in scope for organizations established by international treaties.

If I have understood correctly, international databases were transferred to be included under .arpa some long time ago.

Either way, I see no reason why .int should be opened up beyond organizations established by international treaty at this stage and certainly not without a properly constituted policy development process (which would need to establish a process for appointing a new operator).

None of this, of course, nullifies your conclusion!

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel at channelisles.net<mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>]
Sent: 16 September 2016 12:05
To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk>>
Cc: Christopher Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff
The only reference is descriptive rather than policy setting. .INT predates RFC1591.

It says, simply "This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases". (The latter term is undefined, but includes telephony applications).

You will find this text alongside all the other (at the time) existing generic domains as follows.

Much of what is written below has been changed, and much of what has been changed was changed outside ICANN.

I would be interested to know which policy decision classified some of the gTLDs in this list as "dehors ICANN", and which within.

But as two of the gTLDs described in RFC 1591 are currently extremely sensitive (MIL and GOV),from what I heard in the Senate hearing, perhaps its best not to ask for an answer to this until after the end of the month??

>    World Wide Generic Domains:
>
>    COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
>          companies.  This domain has grown very large and there is
>          concern about the administrative load and system performance if
>          the current growth pattern is continued.  Consideration is
>          being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future
>          commercial registrations in the subdomains.
>
>    EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational
>          institutions.  Many Universities, colleges, schools,
>          educational service organizations, and educational consortia
>          have registered here.  More recently a decision has been taken
>          to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and
>          universities.  Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered
>          in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC,
>          below).1
>
>    NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network
>          providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the
>          administrative computers, and the network node computers.  The
>          customers of the network provider would have domain names of
>          their own (not in the NET TLD).
>
>    ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
>          organizations that didn't fit anywhere else.  Some non-
>          government organizations may fit here.
>
>    INT - This domain is for organizations established by international
>          treaties, or international databases.
>
>    United States Only Generic Domains:
>
>    GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government
>          office or agency.  More recently a decision was taken to
>          register only agencies of the US Federal government in this
>          domain.  State and local agencies are registered in the
> country
>
>
>
> Postel                                                          [Page 2]
>

> RFC 1591      Domain Name System Structure and Delegation     March 1994
>
>
>          domains (see US Domain, below).
>
>    MIL - This domain is used by the US military.

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160923/4937f435/attachment-0001.html>